tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC December 23, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST
united states. >> the extraordinary measures president obama is taking to prevent any kind of muslim registry and to trump-proof the country. then the debacle in north carolina that left democrats in the dust. plus trump's pick for press secretary. >> twilight sparkle from my little pony said this is your dream. >> and a rare retraction from newt. >> i goofed. draining the swamp is in. the alligators should be worried. >> when "all in" starts right now. >> i made a big boo-boo. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. in 29 days donald trump will become the president of the united states, but until then barack obama still holds the job. in the waning days of his term, he's making what appear to be several different efforts to trump-proof the white house. today moving to block one of trump's biggest priorities dating back to the early days of his campaign, the creation of some kind of monitoring system for muslims in the u.s. yesterday we played you trump's response to attacks this week in germany and in turkey given
during a 72-second q & a with reporters. >> has it caused you to rethink or re-evaluate your plans to deal with immigration in the united states. >> you know my plans all along. i've been proven to be right, 100% correct. what's happening is -- >> it's not clear which plans the president-elect was referring to over a year ago in an interview with an abc reporter. he expressed support for a database to track muslims in the u.s. that was followed by his call to ban all muslims from entering the country. after the massacre at the pulse nightclub by a man who pledged allegiance to isis, a demand for surveillance of mosques and other sites. he called for ideological screening for people entering the country. >> should there be a dpas that tracks muslims in the country? >> there should be a lot of systems. we should have a lot of systems. >> is that something your white house would implement? >> i would definite low implement that. >> how would you get them in a database.
>> good management. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. we have to go and we have to maybe check respectfully the mosques and we have to check other places because this is a problem that if we don't solve it, it's going to eat our country alive. the time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. i call it extreme vetting. i call it extreme, extreme vetting. >> very, very extreme. after the election among the many people trump met with for potential administration jobs is kansas secretary of state kris kobach carrying a list of priorities for his first year at
the department of homeland security updated and reintroduce the nseers screening and tracking system. it was a system put in place after 9/11 built in part by kobach who then worked for attorney general ashcroft. 25 cup trees designated havens for terrorists, most of them muslim countries. the obama program stopped using it in 2011 but the basic structure remained in place. in 2012 a report found that nseers is obsolete and should be terminated. while kris kobach didn't get the job of homeland security secretary, he was back at trump tower for a meeting with the president-elect. it just got harder for kobach or anyone else to revive it. today the obama administration announced it is fully dismantling the legal and regulatory structures that enabled nseers to function so if anybody wants to use it again,
they'll have to start from scratch. this is the latest move to batten down the hatches before trump takes over. on tuesday he band drilling in large areas of the atlantic and arctic oceans. he pardon 78 pardons and 153 couple takesing. he has granted clemency to 1,324 individuals according to the justice department. more than twice as many as the previous ten presidents combined. it's a tiny proportion of the number of drug offenders in prison but stunning nonetheless. there's a lot more president obama can do. we told you about 100 advocacy groups calling on the president to use the power of the pardon to shield up to 200,000 legal immigrants with minor criminal records from deportation. it would be an unprecedented move but the groups argue within his authority. there's the plow shares fund asking him to take it off hair trigger alert to allow trump to
send a nuclear missile. that may have gained new urgency after trump shared thoughts. the united states must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes. it's not just the obama administration that can take steps to prevent donald trump from dismantling the present achievements. a record number of people have signed up for insurance for the affordable care act this year. the more that get coverage, the harder it gets for republicans to repeal it. joining me now, senator jeff merkley, democratic senator from oregon. do you approve of dismanting nseers. >> absolutely. folks who have signed up and given their information are folks you'd never worry about. the program didn't serve a purpose except that it did alienate many individuals from feeling like they were full participants in all that america has to offer.
>> should the president be doing more? obviously the president has been setting a record for recent presidents in terms of pardons. there are groups calling on him to protect folks from deportation. are there other executive actions or conversations people are having with the white house about things they should be doing in this final month? >> i know the one that i was pressing very hard on was on the offshore oil drilling because this is just the of irresponsibility to drill off alaska. the states up and down the eastern seaboard are very worried about the impact of oil spills upon their commercial fisheries, upon their beaches, upon their tourism, upon their quality of life, so this was something very important to lock into place. so having argued for that and pushed for that, i was just delighted that the president accomplished that. >> is there a risk in taking strong executive action? the president has taken more executive actions the second term, particularly around things like the epa, power plant ruling, dopa and doca that you are strengthening an executive that donald trump is going to
inherit? >> certainly each president jumps in with their team and carves out the area that they think they have the ability to act in. some of that the courts strike down, some they don't. i'm sure the trump team will be looking for their opportunities. but i really think we have to focus on the fact that america is doing so well in so many ways right now. improved health care for 20 million americans. an economy that has a very low unemployment rate after the debacle of the bush administration. we're making grounds in a number of areas. i hope that trump doesn't come in with this team, this team of cronies he has for his cabinet nominees and do major destruction, but that's certainly -- i'm very concerned about that. >> where are you understanding -- let's start with the president-elect's tweet on nuclear policy today. how do you feel about whether this president-elect is respecting what's known as the one president at a time rule?
>> well, i must say as he jumps in and says that we have to vastly expand our nuclear arsenal, i mean this is an area where it's constrained by international agreements as it should be because of the risk of nuclear weapons. he's going very much against the structure that his good friend nixon and reagan previously followed. there is really so much at risk here of irrational action. right now we have an incoming president who has kind of the maturity of a 5-year-old wrapped by a massive ego. and to have that just a second away from a nuclear trigger is very, very scary. >> you mentioned the nominees and the cabinet as he's filling it out. on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the cabinet that jeff merkley himself would have chosen, 10 being beyond your worst possible
nightmares, where would you put the nominees that are falling into place so far? >> this is way above 10. i couldn't have imagined a group of -- >> you really mean that? >> no, i absolutely do. it's past 10. i couldn't imagine that after trump campaigned for workers he was going to appoint someone who's anti-minimum wage, anti-benefits individual for labor secretary, or that he would bring in someone like scott pruitt and nominate him for the epa who has been all about getting rid of controls on things like mercury, the thing that affects development of our children. or that he would hand over the keys of our economy to goldman sachs. three key individuals being put into powerful positions. this isn't drain the swamp. you know, he's been saying in his victory tour, i kind of didn't like that determine, drain the swamp so i tried it and people cheered so i started using it a lot. >> he did say that. that's an active paraphrase. but he never meant it.
so he's filling the swamp, handle over the keys to wall street and betraying workers. i don't think it's going to go over well. >> thank you. joining me now jack kingston, eric buller. mr. kingston, let me start with you as something that the senator was talking about. third quarter gdp 3.5% annual growth rate, the unemployment rate is down the lowest it's been since the great recession. manufacturing jobs on the rise, the job opening rate highest it's been in nine years since 2007 levels. you've got the president approval rating at 60%, record-setting ebb enrollment in obama care and the incoming president's rating the lowest of any of the last three presidents. is there any pressure not to screw this up? >> well, i think there's a lot of pressure to change and there's been a total rejection of the obama agenda.
we're going after health care, we're going to go after some of these excessive job-killing epa laws, we're going to try to get the economy moving. there was an absolute mandate on that and that's what's going to happen. >> you mean the mandate of getting 3 million less votes? >> let me say this, it won't surprise you that i do disagree with the things the good senator has said. i think the cabinet is a group of all-stars. they come with a great perspective. they're very, very accomplished people. elaine chao, for example, is an insider but i would not say that she's ever been part of the problem, anything but an extremely capable cabinet member in the past. tom price, mike pompeo, general flynn, they're all serious adult people and will do a great job. i want to say this, hillary ran on a third term of barack obama and she lost. yes, she did real, real well in california and new york and i think any democrat, pick one off the shelf, they will win new york and california.
you take away those millions of votes and she did not win. >> with respect to, congressman, if you take away the votes in georgia, alabama, louisiana, i mean we're all part of the same country. i love georgia. but i want eric to respond to that because the point you made i think is the best version of this, which is basically, eric, look, hillary clinton really did run on continuity of barack obama's agenda. >> right. >> i think you and i would agree with you. >> yeah. >> that was very explicit. and she did lose the election. she lost the electoral college. how do you square that with the fact that the president himself right now is very high approval ratings and when the former congressman says there's a mandate for change, at some level there is, at least if you look at the electoral college. >> well, when you look at obama's approval rating and the fact that we rarely have seen someone trying to run as a successor, there was no daylight between hillary clinton and barack obama on any policy issue of any substance.
so i think that points this this was much more of a cultural vote and had nothing to do with the agenda, nothing to do with economic populism. less than i think that people want to claim it's about economic populism. look, people don't want to talk about it. i think it had to do with the fact people didn't want a woman president. if thawould have been a man we would have a democratic victory. 3 million votes. nobody thought she would win by 3 million votes. if you talk about the polling in key states, she was ahead in 100 straight rust belt state votes. >> but that and $2.75 gets you on the subway. >> but it would be interesting to look at why was there a disconnect between the first woman nominee running and this huge disconnect. >> i just want to point out she ran out the clock in new york and california but she lost 200 counties that barack obama won. absolutely this was about jobs and economics and middle america. she did not go to wisconsin. she didn't think she had to.
she quit advertising in colorado during august because they thought we're just going to get more congressmen and senators elected so we're going to really punish the republicans. she quit listening to the american people after she got the nomination. >> congressman, let me ask you this then. if you say it's about jobs and the economy, and i think in a broad sense part of that is true, what's the benchmark for this incoming administration? you've got -- we've got 3.5% gdp growth, wages that went up according to the data we got in the last part of the campaign, the highest level in 60 years. what is the benchmark? how should we judge this as success? 5% growth, 6% growth? >> i think you'll see about a 4% growth rate. over an eight-year period of time it was a 2% growth rate. you had 43 million on food stamps, the lowest labor participation rate in decades of 62%. >> so you're saying -- >> all those numbers are going
to improve. >> that is a very useful benchmark. higher lane participation rate, lower people on food stamps and growth at 4%. i think those are useful targets. >> yeah, if donald trump doesn't do anything, we might get all of that. if he does any of the things -- if he unleashes this fox news cabinet, this breitbart cabinet, none of those numbers are going to be anywhere close. we'll look back at this as the golden years. >> do you think those numbers are actually ultimately going to be what matters? >> yeah. >> fact on the ground of the dmee. >> yeah. and a year from now none of those numbers will be anywhere there. >> do you agree that donald trump will succeed or fail based on the basics of how this economy is functioning? >> yes, absolutely. because i think it goes back to that ronald reagan statement when he ran against jimmy carter. ask yourself this, are you better off than you were four years ago. ike the american people are going to answer that question and give him another four years. >> let's not all get ahead of ourselves. the man has not taken the oath of office yet. >> i'm very optimistic. >> you are, you are, mr. kingston.
thank you for your time. eric bullard as well. what is going on in the north carolina state house? more chaos after they failed to repeal one of the most controversial laws. first, what happened with newt gingrich when he stepped out of line with trump. the positively cringe worthy mea culpa. >> i talked this morning with president-elect donald trump and he reminded me he likes draining the swamp. i mischaracterized it the other day. he intends to drain the swamp. he even describes it as dts.
>> you say you've been working on these issues, others might say you've been working in the swamp, to use donald trump's language. >> i'm told me now exclaims that. he said it was cute but doesn't want to use it anymore. >> news gingrich's comment that donald trump no longer wants to talk about draining the swamp promising over and over and over to do just that did not go over well with the president-elect,
who tweeted today, quote, and this is so perfect. someone incorrectly stated that the phrase "drain the swamp" was no longer being used by me. actually, we will always be trying to dts. a short time after trump's tweet, gingrich released a frankly pretty humiliating video in which he said he got it wrong. >> i want to report that i made a big boo-boo. i talked this morning with president-elect donald trump and he reminded me he likes draining the swamp. i mischaracterized it the other day. he intends to drain the swamp. he even describes it as dts. he thinks taking on boeing and the price is an example of draining the swamp and so i want all of you to know i goofed. draining the swamp is in. the alligators should be worried. and you'll hear me write more about alligators and the swamp, but i thought i owed it to all the folks who follow me that when i make a mistake, i'll be straightforward and tell you. i blew that one.
draining the swamp is in. president-elect trump wants to do it and you're going to get to be part of it. >> that's dts, boy the way. don't get those letters mixed up. gingrich isn't the only trump ally suggesting trump may not be so serious about draining the swamp in washington. we'll show you what his former campaign manager, corey lewandowski, had to say in just 80 seconds. these birds once affected by oil are heading back home. thanks to dawn, rescue workers only trust dawn, because it's tough on grease yet gentle. i am home, i am home, i am hom
donald trump insisted today he is still working, quote, to drain the swamp in washington. listen to what trump's first campaign manager, corey lewandowski, had to say this morning. >> where does drain the swamp stack up on things to adhere to in the trump camp? >> look, i think if you had to put them in a chronological order, drain the swamp is
somewhere probably down at the bottom. draining the swamp is a larger narrative but it's really about putting people back to work. >> larger narrative, it's a story. you can understand why lewandowski might want to play it down because he turned cable news pundit turned, well, starting a lobbying firm just down from the white house that will provide guidance carefully designed to help our clients navigate our government. it's the sort of thing trump railed against during the campaign but things have changed since then. trump has been filling his administration with wealthy wall street bankers, highly connected businessmen along with long-time politicians and creatures of washington. just today trump named a consummate d.c. insider, sean spicer, as his press secretary. spicer has spent the past five years as a communications director for the republican national committee. he got some viral fame back in july when he played down the plagiarism in melania trump's rnc speech by comparing her words to those of twilight sparkle from "my little pony."
>> what we're talking about is in a 1500-word speech, 50 words. in three sections, three sections. one of them -- >> sean, saep, you're not going to do that. >> melania trump said you work hard for what you get in like. john legend said -- >> she said the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them. twilight sparkle from "my little pony" said this is your dream. >> you're not taking it seriously. >> no. a simple google search of three phrases comes up with everything from sparkle pony to john legend to a con. >> it's the word order. >> and those are the same word orders. >> democrats can't do much of anything about the trump picks that are not subject to senate confirmation. people like carl icahn, a special advisor to trump who says he will fight overregulation and helped trump vet candidates to run the epa. scott pruitt and many other picks do have to be confirmed by
the senate and democrats plan to use those senate hearings to launch their political comeback and expose the president-elect as a fraud whose picks are directly at odds with the working class americans he vowed to help. joining me is jason vander, democratic from kansas. secretary kander, if you were in the senate right now, what would you be doing? what do you want to see from the senate democratic caucus in these upcoming nomination hearings? >> well, i think what's really important is democrats make sure we're not just expressing outrage all the time about donald trump's nominees or donald trump's antics, we actually as a party, the democrats tried that in 2016 and it didn't work out all that well just expressing outrage the whole time. it's really important that we explain to people why this matters in their lives. so, for instance, when you say
you're going to drain the swamp and then what you actually do is it appears you're just filling the swamp with wall street executives and possibly there's russian intelligence agents in the swamp, that doesn't actually make the swamp less swampy. >> are you accusing any of the prospective nominees of being russian intelligence agents? >> no, i'm really just saying it would be handy if we could do full investigations to find out, for instance, what their ties are in the corporate world or
worker demographic. >> background checks that usually get done in a vetting process by which these nominees are briefed, the checks are briefed to the senate, do you think democrats should be banging on that, should be demanding they see background checks, demanding they get briefed and everyone gets a full vet? >> absolutely. i don't think there's any reason why you wouldn't want to do that. when you go back to the concept of draining the swamp, for instance, i've seen up close what happens when an entire country loses faith in leaders in their government to keep their promises. so when -- i saw that in afghanistan as an army intelligence officer. when donald trump makes a bold claim like he's going to drain the swamp and then he starts to do things that look like the opposite of it, that has a really profound effect on people actually staying in the process and not checking out of it. >> the voters that you -- that have elected you statewide as secretary of state, the voters that you in a red state that you campaigned in front of and had a very hard-fought race, where do you think the voters of missouri
which is a state that has not gone to the democrats at a presidential level in quite some time, the voters that you're talking to, what is the viewpoint they have as they watch this unfold? >> well, i got over 200,000 votes from folks who also voted for donald trump. and a lot of those people expressed to me that the reason that they were putting faith in both of us was because they believed us when both of us said that we were going to be willing to take on the establishment and actually try and look out for them. so if donald trump's strategy is going to be to completely betray the people who believed in him to do that, that has a permanent effect. that can be for my generation as devastating for morale as watergate and richard nixon's actions were for the boomer generation. it's not a good thing when people put trust in their leaders and they just act like everybody else and betray them. >> jason kander, thanks for your time, appreciate it. >> thank you. still ahead, what was the
political cliche in which one group fools another into thinking they can work together over and over and over, only to have that trust yanked away at the last minute. pretty good example was in north carolina. when roy cooper won the governor's race last month, pat mccrory refused to concede. he insisted on recounts and alleged without a shred of evidence that voter fraud was responsible for his loss. when that didn't work and mccrory finally admitted defeat, republicans in the state legislature held a special session and introduced bills to strip the governor's office of power before cooper, the democratic governor-elect is sworn in. mccrory signed it into law. democrats and republicans cut a pretty straightforward deal. if charlotte got rid of a city ordinance that protected lgbtq folks from discrimination in public places, then republicans would get rid of house bill 2, the very controversial measure that among other things forces transgender people against their
will to use public bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender on their birth certificate. on monday, charlotte democrats got rid of the provisions that republicans objected to but republicans complained they only partially repealed the law. on wednesday morning, the charlotte city council held an emergency meeting and voted to do away with every part of the law. so after democrats in charlotte went above and beyond to do their part, state republicans held a special session yesterday and did not get rid of hb-2. they couldn't reach an agreement on how to do it which means the protection in charlotte are gone and the transgender discrimination law remains. >> this time i'm going to kick that football clear to the moon! aghhh!
2016 was a year almost everyone got it wrong. shoutout bill mitchell, the twitter guy who got it right. when donald trump launched his bid for president, very few people thought he had a shot at winning the presidency and now here we are, 29 days until his inauguration. trump's surprise win and all that came before it prompted a lot of reflection about what happened, what we missed and who we are as a country. michelle goldberg, robert george. so let's start with what we learned this year. i learned a lot. what did you learn, sam? >> well, a lot. but i think, one, you shouldn't rely on big data so much when you're campaigning. that seems to be pretty important. >> i thought we learned the models get it -- complicated models get it wrong less than in 2007-08s which was one of the lessons of the housing crash. >> that applies in a lot of different contexts.
in terms of speaking of running against trump, politics matter. you need to make an argument about politics when you're running for political office. and i don't think that that happened enough with the clinton campaign. >> you're saying because of someone's personality. >> it was so much about the personality and it was so targeted. you know, we're finding out that one of the worst things about donald trump is that he has a hand that he can sign bills with. and, you know, which was one of the things that grover norquist i think said was so great about donald trump. and that did not come up. >> at all. >> in the general election in any meaningful way. >> what did you learn? >> i'll agree with almost everything you said right there. we learned that big polling is not -- actually, we learned that state polling is bad and it looks like we're going to have less state polling because the field report in california is shutting down. the national polls it turns out were not --
>> pretty close. >> were actually with hillary clinton's almost 3 million were pretty close. but campaigns -- campaigns do matter, and it seems that the clinton campaign decided to just sort of just cruise with the obama model, number one, and i think got kind of lured into making a personality war with donald trump. and donald trump actually had a -- he actually had a message. you may not like -- putting aside racism and immigration, stuff like that, there was something of an economic-based message that went to his supporters and hillary clinton didn't really have one to register for hers. >> what did you learn? >> i think we learned about the fragility of the liberal order. i think a lot of us assumed that the united states that we lived in was a stable country in a fairly stable world of alliances.
even if we sort of sneered at that book the end of history, i think a lot of us internalized it and just didn't think that everything we know was so precarious and that kind of american democracy was quite as fragile as it is and that democracy as a whole. i mean we almost -- this seems to be a possibility that we're on the precipice of a most liberal democratic world where countries even ithey have elections -- >> move away from yes the institutions of liberal democracy. it's happening in hungary. in hungary they call what he's doing ill liberal democracy. alexander dugan, the sort of philosopher prop gandist behind putin says liberal democracy is an enemy. >> not to sound unpatriotic, but in a sense we learned that america isn't exceptional, because it happened in the uk,
it happened here, and it's happening across europe as well. >> to me the lesson which relates to this is, yes, there are no guardrails. there's not some sort of natural force where nations regrow -- you know, there's more global cooperation, that this sort of like -- that we get along better, no. that absolutely doesn't exist. and also the thing i keep thinking about and brexit really does connect to this is i knew this already but it was a wake-up call. you cannot build a global order that is benefitting a lot of people. and let's keep in mind it is. there are literally hundreds of millions of people in china that were at starvation levels of subsistence who can essentially work and drive cars. so this global order has conferred big benefits on hundreds of millions of people. you cannot construct something that kwerz benefits and hammers essentially the middle class
that makes up the voting constituencies across the entire first world that are the most powerful governments on earth with their fingers on the trigger. >> those people say, yeah, that's all right. >> you cannot construct an order that does that. >> and i think one of the things i'll add in terms of that fragility, particularly here, that really is more of a 2017 thing in terms of where we find out just how fragile that is. but this story about trump having his own sort of personal security team, that could be really problematic it seems to me. like that to me is the scary -- and it's the thing where -- >> and you don't mean problematic in the twitter sense of a pop song with bad politics. >> we very rarely contemplate the idea that the president -- there's no one really to show up and say to the president you can't do that. >> that's right. >> and we've never contemplated that much because we think that our norms and our traditions are keeping people in their lanes. but when push comes to shove,
who's going to show up and tell donald trump, you can't have your own personal security force. >> and when you have the former speaker of the house, newt gingrich, who i worked for in a previous lifetime, basically go out there and say, well, the incoming president has so much wealth, we should actually change the laws so there isn't an ethical conflict. >> or the laws that he likes -- >> and he can pardon everybody. >> i want you to all stay right here because i want to know just who you would pick as the person of the year apart from donald j. trump. mull that over for a moment and we'll be right back.
who would rather have it be the man of the year? [ cheering ] maybe why that -- that could be why the magazine business isn't so great, right? >> it is possible that there's one thing donald trump wanted even more than being elected president, it would be named "time" magazine's man of the year. even though he did win, in classic trump fashion he slammed the magazine for labeling him pers of thyear instead of man. so who could have been the other contenders? michelle goldberg, i'll start with you. >> i think it's clearly vladimir putin. not just because of the role that he played in trump's election, which was significant, but because of the role that he's playing in this new ill liberal order. he is the patron of many of the far right movements and parties that are ascendant all over europe. you know, he's successfully remaking a good part of the world in his image. >> the right wing party in austria which was found id by
nazis signed a partnership agreement with putin's party in russia. putin has lent the national front in france, the far right party there, $20 million or something like that. >> this incredible irony that a -- a former member of the kgb of the communist ussr is now funding all these far right parties -- >> right, although it's not that strange because it's basically what he's setting up is a common turn for right wing nationalism. like that's -- let's remember that this was what happened with communist parties throughout the west, the duration of that period of time. italian communist party, the french communist party. there were domestic communists who believed in that and were patriots, but there was a lot of money and stuff flowing from -- >> you know, sadly you sort of have to give this kind of retrospective tip of the hat to the cassandra of the republican party, mitt romney, who four years ago when he said -- when he said that russia is our major
geopolitical strategy and it was dismissed from president obama on down and he was right. >> and in terms of what we learned this year, it's just been astonishing. i never -- i did think they were nationalists and would not -- and would not happily -- >> would not brook this interference. quickly, your person for person of the yore? >> actually entity of the year i would give to the grim reaper to reaper because of all the creative minds we lost this year. but i would give it actually to kellyanne conway who was the third or fourth campaign manager of donald trump and was the one who ended up managing to rein him in in the moment that was most important, the last three weeks of the campaign, he stayed focused.
they took away his twitter account for that last week and he stayed focused for the last three weeks. he may have gotten an assist from others but -- >> she doesn't like to talk about it a lot, about that victory. she likes to keep it very chill. >> first female campaign -- >> yeah. >> she will -- >> -- tweeted out his victory broke the highest possible glass ceiling for women. >> there are many reasons why hillary clinton lost this election. it shouldn't have been as close. to have so many "but fors." but the one person who was a but for, it seems to me is james comey. if james comey was never born, this election turns out differently and the trajectory of this country and it's also true of -- >> clinton and weiner. >> well, i don't even -- >> there's a lot of but fors. let me quickly give mine, mitch mcconnell, what he gave was so audacious but cherry on top was
merrick garland. a duel elected president of the united states who is constitutionally mandated to send a nominee to the senate which is to advise and consent. we're not doing that. this is going to incentivize conservatives and we're going to block it. i don't care if it was 600 days. they even started talking about how weren't going to confirm the clinton nominee if she were confirmed. but this became a motivator for conservatives who didn't like donald trump to vote because mitch mcconnell had sex -- sick self-le block aided the seat. it was a machiavellian stroke of evil genus. all right. i want you all to try to name one good thing that happened this year. stick around.
>> "all in" with crist hayes is brought to you by taltz. by most accounts, 2016 is a year that many people would like to forget. we had police shootings, yam bushes of police, terror attacks, record hot temperatures, possibly the country's ugliest presidential election and we lost a variety of geniuses and towering figures from prince, david bowie, muhammad ali. so is there anything good that happened this year? here to answer this question with me, i guess i'll start with you, good thing, sam. >> it's tough to find good things that are going to be durable. because a lot of the things are going to be reversed. but from my perspective, ideas
about economic positions in the democratic party that were marginal before 2016 move to the center of the party. things like free college or mostly free college. expanding social security. $15 minimum wage. these are our issues that i think have been talked about for a long time in sort of the liberal left trenches. and they're now mainstream democratic positions for what it's worth. >> interestingly, we're not anigh lighted by the loss. in the sense that hillary clinton's loss did not make those positions as a centerpiece of the democratic party go away. there's an argument they got strengthened. >> yes, i know -- >> depending on the -- >> one of the reasons they didn't get hurt is because she didn't run on those. >> she did run on them. >> she did embrace them, but she did not run on them. >> that's a distinction. >> that's a -- >> i quibble a little bit. >> you want to look at what she paid for in terms of ads.
look at it that way. >> michelle goldberg, good news. >> it's a sign of how hideous this year has been that you have to go this far afield, but the election in austria, where it really seemed as if that was going to be the next country to fall to the right, fall to the freedom party and after that there's a number of elections in countries in europe that seem sort of dicey. the fact that the center left won that election made it seem as if there is still some people in europe who know what it looks like. >> literally did not see that coming. i'm going to go further afield and just sort of leave politics. obviously some republicans are very happy with what happened. others are not. the chicago cubs obviously was a good thing. and you know, the olympics was was like wonderful, some like fantastic stories, one of the
more, you know, diverse medal fields. >> the women's gymnastics team was totally amazing. >> the women's gymnastics team. and it was -- it kind of -- you know, gave us this like little hope that, you know, there is a world order, we can compete, we can compete, we can compete on a -- in a global setting peacefully and, oh, by the way, america is really great. and we don't have to make america great again because we're kicking butt. and it was a really nice, brief like 2 -- 2-week window. >> yeah. >> of optimism in the country. >> i will say that for me the answer's pretty obvious which is the chicago cubs who i've been a lifelong cubs fan. >> and the seventh inning was -- >> i got to go -- my father raised me a cubs fan. i got to go to wrigley field with my dad. i took him out for a game, game four.
they got their butts kicked. it was a terrible game. we got to see it. then we got to watch game seven together. that was pretty amazing. that one i'll keep with me. the rest of the year a little more questionable. thanks for your time tonight. that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now with a very special guest. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris. i'm very excited about my special guest. thank you for joining us for this hour. we do have a very special guest tonight. i am looking forward to this conversation. in the presidential campaign of 1984, ronald reagan was running for re-election against walter mondale and in august of that election year as things were heating up, the reagan campaign picked just a bull's-eye religious conservative issue, not just to work on as policy because he was president, but to campaign on for re-election as well.
and so president reagan gave a radio address in august of that year, and you know, it was designed for the campaign. he was talking about what he was doing as president, haranguing the democrats in congress for making him do it. it was one of the perfectly calibrated campaign year issue. you can still get the text of the radio address that he gave on this subject. you can still get the text of it online at the reagan library website. here's how it starts. quote, my fellow americans, i'm pleased to tell you that today i signed legislation that will allow student religious groups to begin enjoying a right they've too long been denied -- the freedom to meet in public high schools during nonschool hours, so that's the issue that he picked. and that's the text of that radio address. here's the thing, though. this was a radio address, it was audio only. he was going to do the radio address from his house in santa barbara, california. as they were setting up for him